Re: Autoconf breakage

2004-08-09 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
--On Saturday, August 7, 2004 1:44 PM +1000 Brian Havard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The 2.13 macro is actually AC_MSG_WARN but when I tried using that it still failed while it was contained in the m4_if. Moving the line out of the m4_if, having the $0 in there seems to cause some kind of infinite

Re: Autoconf breakage

2004-08-09 Thread David Reid
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: --On Saturday, August 7, 2004 1:44 PM +1000 Brian Havard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The 2.13 macro is actually AC_MSG_WARN but when I tried using that it still failed while it was contained in the m4_if. Moving the line out of the m4_if, having the $0 in there seems to

RC5

2004-08-09 Thread David Reid
So, apart from the complaints about apr-util, are people happy that apr RC5 is OK? Are those who wanted the ldap code yanked now happy that it can be added back in? david

Re: RC5

2004-08-09 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
--On Monday, August 9, 2004 12:36 PM +0100 David Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, apart from the complaints about apr-util, are people happy that apr RC5 is OK? Releasing 1.0 with the known fact that autoconf-2.13 doesn't work with find_apr.m4 seems fine by me. We can release the latest

Re: RC5

2004-08-09 Thread David Reid
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: --On Monday, August 9, 2004 12:36 PM +0100 David Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, apart from the complaints about apr-util, are people happy that apr RC5 is OK? Releasing 1.0 with the known fact that autoconf-2.13 doesn't work with find_apr.m4 seems fine by me. We

Re: RC5

2004-08-09 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
--On Monday, August 9, 2004 5:46 PM +0100 David Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: patch - but users of the tarball won't likely be running buildconf. [If you wanted, you could include the new find_apr.m4 in 1.0 - your call.] OK. Which version is the one I should be including? I *believe* r1.16 of

Re: RC5

2004-08-09 Thread Mladen Turk
David Reid wrote: So, apart from the complaints about apr-util, are people happy that apr RC5 is OK? Are those who wanted the ldap code yanked now happy that it can be added back in? david Here is what I'm getting trying to compile the latest HEAD on WIN32: Creating apr_ldap.h from apr_ldap.hw

1.0

2004-08-09 Thread malc
Hi, Perhaps im way off on this and please do correct me if i am wrong. Condition variables on Win32 are broken, if you are going to label APR with 1.0 mark and release it right now, without mentioning this fact in big red letters, this would essentially be equal to releasing a trojan horse - a

Re: 1.0

2004-08-09 Thread C K Tan
Second that. The Win32 conditional problem was not new. I reported it and submited a patch back on Oct 28, 2003. Someone was looking at it (forgot the name), but never did check in a fix... Along the way, someone else ran into it and filed a report in bugzilla (id# 27654). Still no fix. I have

Re: 1.0

2004-08-09 Thread Max Khon
Hi! On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 08:57:09PM +0400, malc wrote: Perhaps im way off on this and please do correct me if i am wrong. Condition variables on Win32 are broken, if you are going to label APR with 1.0 mark and release it right now, without mentioning this fact in big red letters, this

Re: 1.0

2004-08-09 Thread malc
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: --On Monday, August 9, 2004 8:57 PM +0400 malc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Condition variables on Win32 are broken, if you are going to label APR with 1.0 mark and release it right now, without mentioning this fact in big red letters, this would

Re: 1.0

2004-08-09 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
malc, is there anything that can be done in our apr/test/ tree to validate the correct behavior, and tickle these bugs? This would obviously help validate the patches you propose, and possibly pick up such bugs in other condition variable implementations. The emphasis for 1.0.0 is

Re: RC5

2004-08-09 Thread Max Bowsher
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: My only concern is that apr-util still isn't 'fixed' wrt apu-config. I don't know if I'll have time to port those changes over soon. I've already posted a patch! Max.

Re: 1.0

2004-08-09 Thread malc
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: malc, is there anything that can be done in our apr/test/ tree to validate the correct behavior, and tickle these bugs? This would obviously help validate the patches you propose, and possibly pick up such bugs in other condition variable

Re: RC5

2004-08-09 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
--On Monday, August 9, 2004 8:34 PM +0100 Max Bowsher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Justin Erenkrantz wrote: My only concern is that apr-util still isn't 'fixed' wrt apu-config. I don't know if I'll have time to port those changes over soon. I've already posted a patch! Oh, wow, you did. ;-) I'll

Re: RC5

2004-08-09 Thread Graham Leggett
David Reid wrote: Are those who wanted the ldap code yanked now happy that it can be added back in? The majority of the fooness on the LDAP stuff was caused by the attempt to support the now archaic LDAP v2.0 C SDK, using macros. All the macros are now gone. Please speak up if there is

Re: 1.0

2004-08-09 Thread Ryan Bloom
The chances that I have time to look at this are slim to none currently. My time is currently being swallowed by my job and my real life. Ryan On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 14:52:27 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 02:46 PM 8/9/2004, malc wrote: No, but i would guess taking some